Pages

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Guest Poster: The Whole Bible . . . really?

I've copied two excellent comments from Friday's post here. Looking at the posting time, it's likely they are from the same anonymous commenter. My comments are in blue. Thank you, Anonymous, this is good stuff!

Beaverton Grace Bible Church Motto:

Our Motto

is the Bible, the
whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible! (Isa. 55:11 & Heb. 4:12) The
Word of God will bless your life, your family, and your eternity.

Let's see if this is true.

The Bible says:

1 Corinthians 6:7
Now
therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law
against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not
rather let yourselves be cheated?

(Sorry - I have to interject here:
how does he get to determine which text applies to him or not? Do we
get to do that with scripture, too? I don't remember him preaching that
from the pulpit. Is it all the Bible or not?)

Chuck O'Neal says (per Google review):

The
context of 1 Cor. 6:7-8 is primarily that of business, property, and
financial matters. We are not wrangling over some monetary loss that we
have been defrauded. We are not losing financially due to some dispute
of business with a fellow Christian. There is no property in question.
There is nothing petty at stake. The local church, the ministry of the
Gospel, and our families are under attack.

Julie Anne's question: Then why is he suing for $500,000 - - - - - women with children and two young adults? I don't know - - it just makes me think there's some women issues going on beneath the surface. What Man of God goes after mothers and children? Wait isn't he accusing me of harming wives, harming children? So, is he doing what he is accusing me of doing? ( FOR THREE AND A HALF YEARS JULIEANNE AND THOSE WITH HER, HAVE BEEN
ENGAGED IN PUBLIC, CHURCH TO CHURCH, AND WORLD WIDE WEB DEFAMATION IN A
SELFISH WILLINGNESS TO DISCREDIT GOD, HARM THE CHURCH, HARM WIVES, HARM
CHILDREN, AND HARM THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST’S GOSPEL (review)

The Bible says:

Matthew 5:43-45a
You
have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate
your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse
you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully
use you and persecute you that you may be sons of your Father in
heaven...

Chuck O'Neal says (per Google review):

After
three and a half years of suffering a great many injuries tamely,
without stirring for our own relief, we are now using lawful means to
right the ministry of the Gospel at BGBC and to protect our families.

The Bible says:

Matthew 15:7-9
Hypocrites!
Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 'These people draw near
to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is
far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the
commandments of Men'.

Now...let's take a look at Chuck O'Neal's excuse for why 1 Corinthians 6
does NOT apply to him. In his Google review he quotes from Matthew
Henry's commentary:

This part is NOT in bold, so apparently does NOT apply:

“Here
is at least an intimation that they went to law for trivial matters,
things of little value; for the apostle blames them that they did not
suffer wrong rather than go to law (v. 7), which must be understood of
matters not very important.

This part is in BOLD and, of course, applies:

IN
MATTERS OF GREAT DAMAGE TO OURSELVES OR FAMILIES, WE MAY USE LAWFUL
MEANS TO RIGHT OURSELVES. WE ARE NOT BOUND TO SIT DOWN AND SUFFER THE
INJURY TAMELY, WITHOUT STIRRING FOR OUR OWN RELIEF;

Can you imagine Jesus pulling that line when he was hanging on the cross? Was he all about protecting his reputation and suing people? I think not.

This last part, of course, does NOT apply:

but, in matters of small consequence, it is better to put up with the
wrong. Christians should be of a forgiving temper. And it is more for
their ease and honour to suffer small injuries and inconveniences than
seem to be contentious.

1 Corinthinians 6:8

No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!

Those of us with eyes to see can see so clearly!

No kidding. Great posts!

So from the reviews, I gather it is being said that I and "those with me" are waging battle against Chuck and the church, and we are the "enemy". But I remember sermons preached about being persecuted for Christ's sake. I assume he thinks he's (and the church) being persecuted. Is he taking up the cross like he told us to do? Does he and the church think they gets to pick and choose who "persecutes" him/them and make sure the timing is on his/their schedule? So he'll only take it like a good soldier by "putting up with the wrong" and "suffer small injuries and inconveniences" if the conditions are right? And if the conditions are not right, then they get to sue, which is contrary to scripture? Is that how it works? I'm just trying to sort this out here. It's all very confusing to me.

16 comments:

Why now? It looks as though the reviews he refers to are several years old. Has he only just discovered them? Has he just recently been informed that some have been dissuaded from attending his church by negative reviews? Do they just need an infusion of cash or a common enemy to fight in order to maintain unity? What an ego trip for a church to say they are being persecuted for doing good! But really? Hurting people is doing good?

No, he's known about the reviews within a few wks of my original (now removed) review in late 2009 and in fact he and Stephanie responded to it. I posted more reviews because my reviews were continually being removed. More people from the church added glowing reviews to the Google and Dex reviews sites in an obvious attempt to keep the positive reviews on top and push down negative reviews so they would not be easily seen.

Just as he used shunning in the church to prevent people from church to talk to others, he appears to be attempting to shut down my right and the right of others who comment to free speech on the internet. He simply cannot enforce the no-talk rule in civil society.

"The point is this, no Christian is ever to take another Christian to court. That is sin and terrible testimony to the world."

Here is the above statement in context:

"Now, again, I say to you he’s not complaining that Christians can’t get justice in the court. There’s justice to be gained in the courts. Not always. Jesus couldn’t get it, and there was some political intrigue with the life of Paul, and there may be from time to time times when the courts don’t give justice; but, for the most part in Roman law, as in law today, thee is justice there; and government is established to protect good people and punish evil, and it just generally works out that way. So that isn’t what he’s saying. He’s not saying every judge in the world is unjust morally. He’s talking about their spiritual state before God, not their ability to evaluate a given case. They’re unregenerate. They don’t know Christ, and he’s saying, “How could you possibly take matters within the family outside the family?” The church is responsible for these decisions. It should be taken to the saints is what he’s saying in verse 1. Let the believers, and the word saints is the holy ones. Why would you give it to the unholy to judge? Why not to the holy, the family, the church? The point is this, no Christian is ever to take another Christian to court. That is sin and terrible testimony to the world."

Chuck stated in a google review that someone from MacArthur's church gave him the go ahead on a lawsuit. That is strange in light of the sermon "Forbidden Lawsuits". Also, the fact that there are numerous website's calling John MacArthur a heretic, wolf, etc. and as far as I know he isn't suing them.

Why would Chuck sue former members in a secular court of law but not meet with them and another local pastor?

It is interesting. I imagine it would be challenging to have to answer to a pastor, but to skip that very obvious step and now put yourself in a position where you have to answer the civil court system? Wow . . . just wow. Are we having fun yet? It baffles my brain. My brain has been baffled more than once lately. Perhaps it's time for a nap.

I am glad someone brought up the issue of Chuck supposedly getting the go-ahead from someone in MacArthur's church. I was beginning to think I was crazy and that I hadn't really read it. I am curious as to what John MacArthur would think of knowing that his name is being used as partial justification for a lawsuit.

No, BGBC is not affiliated with Grace Community. I am not convinced that Grace Community gave him the "go ahead" to sue us. It has not been confirmed to me by anyone at Grace Community. At least 2 pastors are well aware of the lawsuit, however.

I just have to make an observation here. Chuck says in his review that you are trying to "HARM THE CHURCH". This is incorrect. As I understand it, you are still an evangelical christian. Thus you have not acted against "The Church". "The Church" as the Bible defines it is all believers, worldwide since Christ's death and resurrection who will become the pure, spotless bride of Christ. You have only spoken about this small church in Beaverton, OR. It is presumptuous and egotistical of this pastor to refer to his small congregation as "THE CHURCH".

In regards to 1 Corinthians 6:7. Chuck probably feels justified in filing suit against you and the others because he probably no longer considers you and "the others" as part of the church or even as true believers. Which means, and this is probably Chuck's favorite reply, "The rules don't apply!"

Maybe that sounds Jaded. But in all seriousness, if Chuck was any kind of decent man, he would have come to you as a brother in Christ to resolve the matter. It sounds like Chuck is more of a, "You come to me and repent", kind of guy. That's so very unfortunate. I wonder if Chuck knows that he is a sinner and capable of sin. I guess he doesn't know how to recognize sin in himself as he is clearly committing it here.

Twitter

My Story in a Nutshell

I began this blog in Feb. 2012 after noticing that the Google reviews I had posted of my former church were being removed. Days after the commencement of this blog, I received a legal summons suing me and three others for defamation to the tune of $500,000.
The story of spiritual abuse needs to be told. People are being hurt emotionally and spiritually by pastors who use bully tactics and we need a place to learn, to talk freely, and to heal. I will not be silenced.
****Update: 7/26/12 Case was dismissed. We won!
See my new blog: www.SpiritualSoundingBoard.com